ADDRESSING ALLEGED PLAGIARISM: A JOURNEY OF INVESTIGATION AND RESOLUTION
In a complex case of alleged plagiarism, Journal A faced a situation where a review paper published in their journal was claimed to be virtually identical to a paper published four years earlier in Journal B. The editor of Journal A initiated an inquiry, seeking an explanation from the author of the contested paper. COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) provided guidance, advising the journal to contact the institution of the author of Journal A and conduct an independent assessment.
Following the COPE guidance, the editor of Journal A involved the author's institution, and an impartial review was conducted. The outcome of the investigation concluded that there was no intentional plagiarism. The author of the contested paper issued an apology, asserting that there was no deliberate attempt to plagiarize.
The editor, with the consent of all involved parties, communicated the findings, explaining that the journal did not intend to pursue further action. Despite the resolution, the complainant, who brought forward the plagiarism allegation, did not respond further.
The editor emphasized that the decision was made independently, based on personal judgment, and not influenced by the recommendations of the author's institution. The notion of "conscious" and "unconscious" plagiarism was discussed, with the editor highlighting the need to prove intentional plagiarism for sanctions to apply. The editor acknowledged that passages highlighted by the aggrieved author involved ideas and concepts from multiple sources, not solely the work of the complainant.
Addressing concerns about potential biases within institutions, the editor maintained that the internal investigation was essential for presenting facts, allowing for an informed editorial judgment. The editor intended to communicate the closure of the case to the complainant, detailing COPE's discussion and emphasizing that, from the journal's perspective, the case was concluded.
